Charles Krauthammer says it right up front in his Washington Post column: “I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier.”

He does, however, challenge the notion that the science on climate change is settled and says those who insist otherwise are engaged in “a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate.”

How ironic, then, that some environmental activists launched a petition urging the Post not to publish Krauthammer’s column on Friday.

Their response to opinions they disagree with is to suppress the speech.

Brad Johnson (@ClimateBrad), the editor of HillHeat.com and a former Think Progress staffer, boasted on Twitter that 110,000 people had urged the newspaper “to stop publishing climate lies” like the Krauthammer piece.

I understand that many people are passionate about global warming and consider skeptics to be flat-earthers. Those who don’t like the arguments by Krauthammer, a Fox News contributor, should by all means criticize, dispute, denounce and otherwise go at him. That’s how debate takes place in a country with a vibrant media culture.

Instead, these folks believe that censorship is preferable. Why engage Krauthammer when they might just be able to employ pressure tactics to silence him? And what’s the difference between this and shouting down a speaker at a town hall?

Krauthammer told me the petition-signers “showed up just in time to make precisely the point I made in the column.”

When it comes to free speech, he says, “they don’t even hide it anymore. Now they proudly want certain arguments banished from discourse. The next step is book burning. So the question of the day is: Can you light a Kindle?

“Is there anything more anti-scientific than scientific truths being determined by petition and demonstration?”

Maybe this reflects a broader trend in which people want to wall themselves off from contrary information — and wall off others as well. Debating a complicated subject like climate change — and, equally important, what to do about it — is difficult. Attempting to silence the other side is the easy way out.

Of course, most climate-change proponents are perfectly willing to argue their case on the merits. Unfortunately, that doesn’t apply to everyone.

“Is there anything more anti-scientific than scientific truths being determined by petition and demonstration?”

No worse than thinking they are determined by public debate among lay people.

>99% of the population doesn't understand enough of the basic science to even have an informed opinion on anthropogenic climate change, and I'm pretty sure that the 99% includes Charles Krauthammer. What are his qualifications for being granted space in the Washington Post to air his views on science? Why should anyone care what he thinks about something that he has no training in and hasn't spent enough time to come to a high level of understanding?

No worse than thinking they are determined by public debate among lay people.

>99% of the population doesn't understand enough of the basic science to even have an informed opinion on anthropogenic climate change, and I'm pretty sure that the 99% includes Charles Krauthammer. What are his qualifications for being granted space in the Washington Post to air his views on science? Why should anyone care what he thinks about something that he has no training in and hasn't spent enough time to come to a high level of understanding?

They don't need to if they know who is behind pushing it and read about the scientists who oppose these claims. All one has to do is look at the solutions being promoted. It's about global socialism.

It not surprising that the commies get called watermelons. Calling people uneducated enough to understand is censorship, particularly when some of them are a doctor like Krauthammer.

__________________My Message to President-Elect Donald Trump:America did NOT became great because of what government did. America became great because of what the U.S. Constitution prevented our government from doing. The people made America great.

No worse than thinking they are determined by public debate among lay people.

>99% of the population doesn't understand enough of the basic science to even have an informed opinion on anthropogenic climate change, and I'm pretty sure that the 99% includes Charles Krauthammer. What are his qualifications for being granted space in the Washington Post to air his views on science? Why should anyone care what he thinks about something that he has no training in and hasn't spent enough time to come to a high level of understanding?

Krauthammer may be a bit better educated than you give him credit for.

__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

It's been posted before throughout numerous climate-change threads since 2006. Happy searching....and reading.

__________________My Message to President-Elect Donald Trump:America did NOT became great because of what government did. America became great because of what the U.S. Constitution prevented our government from doing. The people made America great.

Right. Just confirming that you didn't actually know what you're talking about. Again.

This confirms you don't know much about the politics of this.

It is ALL here. You're just too much of a waste of time to bother typing it all out again.

So continue to flop around on deck wallowing in your hostile disposition.

__________________My Message to President-Elect Donald Trump:America did NOT became great because of what government did. America became great because of what the U.S. Constitution prevented our government from doing. The people made America great.

Krauthammer may be a bit better educated than you give him credit for.

So isn't Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen of MIT and the 31,000 plus scientists that signed the Oregon Petition Institute.

__________________My Message to President-Elect Donald Trump:America did NOT became great because of what government did. America became great because of what the U.S. Constitution prevented our government from doing. The people made America great.

I agree with Fish, particularly the bolded. But people who wholly believe climate change, but hold a view akin to Fish's , need to realize that they have vultures on their shoulder very much like Al Gore who are seeking to enact sweeping socialization to oversee and dictate an immense part of individual and societal activity.

It's not partisan, it's ideological

Your toilet paper
How often you flush
how much TV you watch
How often you cook food
your lights
oil
coal
natural gas
nuclear
how much you drive
where you live
where you work in relation to where you live
how much you surf the internet or do web searches
your lawn
if and where you golf, or play pickup sports

They want the government to pressure you to reduce all of these things and countless more, and for consumption of them to be much more expensive.

It's paternal and elitist, and it'll hurt the poor and middle class the worst.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish

I fully acknowledge this, and it honestly scares me. I think this exact thing will hurt our future study and taint the underlying effort. Which is why I think it's so important to draw a very distinct separation between the politics of climate change and the actual science. Sadly, I still see the idiot politicians winning the battle before science has enough data to actually address what might need done. Governments are going to propose action before we're justified, and it's going to make people even more resistant to the overall idea.